Bugzappers EOL process and abrt bug reporters being flagged with needinfo before bugs are closed?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 10:58:25 +1000, Brendan wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/05/2010 10:30 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > For issues that persist, a different user will [need to] open a new
> > ticket. And who will pay attention and notice that it's the same issue
> > that was closed WONTFIX N*6 months ago?
> Understood - but there is a lot of useful info captured in the earlier 
> bugs which is lost when closed.

Apparently you misunderstood me here. It is _bad_ that something is lost.
Not just "a lot of useful info" is lost, also the bug's history is
disturbed/falsified.

Since the tickets have not been dealt with in six months or more than that,
there isn't any magic workhorse that will deal with them when they
 - stay closed,
 - are reopened,
 - are filed as duplicates by somebody else.

Double-bad for software, which hasn't changed between Fedora N and Fedora N+1.

The automated closing of related tickets doesn't help with discovering
poorly maintained packages or bug-infested software releases.

> There are a number of reporters who file 
> a bug and assume other people are experiencing the same problem and then 
> terminate their involvement, which is fine. However, if they see that 
> the bug is still open, they are more likely to confirm/deny the 
> existence of the original problem in a later release.

Any numbers on that?
How many tickets are reassigned during the 30 days?
How many tickets are reopened after the 30 days?
How many tickets stay closed?
 
> There are so many open bugs - anything which helps us zappers out to 
> maintain some kind of continuity is very welcome in my book. What's a 
> few emails every 6 months?

It isn't "a few".

And IMO, the request to retest ought to come much earlier, at least
for tickets filed for F-N when F-N+1 is released.